A computer science major I knew in college taunted me by saying that chimps banging on keyboards would, given enough time, recreate the works of Shakespeare. I was not sure if he meant they would by some point have typed out every word in Shakespeare's plays and poems, in which case they definitely would not have reproduced the works themselves. Or did he mean that they would be able to produce Hamlet in its intergrity? If so, I think he was also wrong there. Of course, even if he could be right on the second count, there is no meaning to the accomplishment, no real credit due to either chimps or computers.Interbane wrote:If a trillion monkeys were given a trillion typewriters and a trillion years, they would most likely reproduce many random books.
-
In total there are 66 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 65 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
Beauty
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
-
DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
-
Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
I'm pretty sure it's the former. How many random 100 word posts would be required to perfectly recreate this post of mine, at random? How long does it take? It's just a simple math problem with an interesting visual answer. I'm sure you're right though, every character being a multiplier of 50 would have the answer fill the universe.
-
johnson1010
-
Tenured Professor
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
- 15
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 1280 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
A big factor in beauty is symmetry.
Experiments have been conducted where people are shown a series of faces and asked to rate them 1-10 on beauty. People with asymmetrical features consistantly score lower than those with more symmetry.
They photoshop the faces by cutting the image in half and mirroring it to produce a new symmetrical version of the less attractive images. These images were then rated again and they scored higher.
Check out this link. It is short and illustrates the concept well.
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaete ... metrie.htm
Experiments have been conducted where people are shown a series of faces and asked to rate them 1-10 on beauty. People with asymmetrical features consistantly score lower than those with more symmetry.
They photoshop the faces by cutting the image in half and mirroring it to produce a new symmetrical version of the less attractive images. These images were then rated again and they scored higher.
Check out this link. It is short and illustrates the concept well.
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaete ... metrie.htm
I have heard the same thing that johnson1010 brought up. I remember seeing a documentary on the symmetry of beauty. There was a lot of measuring of distances between facial features. They even measured up some famous beautiful people and discussed the results. Halle Berry was very symmetrical--no surprise there!
This is a very interesting topic. I look forward to checking back in on this thread.
This is a very interesting topic. I look forward to checking back in on this thread.
